Editorial: Snyder should veto e-cigarette legislation

Everybody agrees that the state should prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors, but the regulatory questions surrounding e-cigarettes are complex and largely unanswered, and Gov. Rick Snyder should defer to the medical community and veto e-cigarette legislation heading to his desk.

On Friday, members of 17 health-related organizations reiterated their opposition to bills

SB 667

,

SB 668

and

HB 4997

, for which the governor himself has wisely expressed reservations.

The legislation would ban e-cigarettes for minors, prohibiting their sale and possession, and it received bipartisan support in both chambers of the Legislature.

Yet the bills have little if any support among groups in the medical and health communities, among them the American Heart Association, which avers that language in the Michigan legislation could exempt electronic cigarettes from tobacco regulations such as workplace restrictions or taxes on sales.

Who does support the legislation? Big tobacco companies such as Altria — formerly named Philip Morris — which is on record supporting the Michigan bills and similar legislation in other states.

The reason is clear enough: The burgeoning market for electronic cigarettes, more formally known as vaporizers, represents huge profits for the industry.

Developed in China in 2003 and introduced to U.S. markets about five years later, the market for vaporizers has soared. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2013 found

6.8 percent of youth in grades 6–12

and

6 percent of adults

have used e-cigarettes. That represents about 5 million youth and 14.5 million adults. Bloomberg Industries

projects

e-cigarette sales could reach $1.5 billion this year.

For the uninitiated, e-cigarettes are slender electronic devices that imitate conventional smoking by vaporizing liquid nicotine. The user powers the device by inhaling on the mouthpiece. The e-cigarette then vaporizes liquid nicotine in an inserted cartridge.

Proponents argue that e-cigarettes provide users with the pleasurable effects of nicotine without the toxins associated with smoking tobacco and the additives in the product. There are two problems with that line of reasoning.

One, the scientific community hasn’t had time to research the long-term health effects of inhaling vaporized nicotine. Although absent the myriad chemicals found in tobacco smoke,

early research

indicates that the vaporized nicotine can indeed cause genetic mutations that may lead to cancer.

Two, nicotine remains addictive, even in vaporized form. As we wrote back in March, companies such as Altria are in the business of getting people hooked on their products. If they say they support legislation that would restrict that business, it's wise to be skeptical.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is considering whether to regulate e-cigarettes, but it's been slow to respond. Just last week, we learned that the Obama administration — no doubt in response to the tobacco lobby — is softening proposed e-cigarette restrictions, watering down language about health concerns and nixing a clause that would be used to ban online sales.

In the meantime, states and even some cities are forging their own regulatory responses, with some opting to regulate the devices similarly to tobacco, banning their use in the workplace and in public spaces and others, including Michigan, pursuing restrictions on sale to minors.

Protecting youth should without question be an essential public policy response to the growth of electronic cigarette sales, but we all know that restricting sales to minors is of limited effect.

Even where age restrictions are in place, minors are finding access through dealers online.

The legislation before Snyder, while perhaps well-intended, is inadequate in its scope. Electronic cigarettes, while likely safer than their tobacco counterparts, are indisputably a gateway to nicotine addiction, and they should be regulated as such.